Rossi Strikes More Hopeful Tone Regarding E-Cat Tests

I posted a question to Andrea Rossi on the Journal of Nuclear Physics about the value of partnering with Industrial Heat with their location in the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, and with the various contacts they have in the high tech industry.

Rossi responded:

With Industrial Heat we are making an important work of R&D, validation and industrialization. We are a strong team. The impact of the partnership has been and is extremely productive. About the results, I prefer to wait the results of the R&D and validation work in course. In Industrial Heat I am the chief scientist and as such I can talk about the results only after the validation in course will have been consolidated, based upon long term rigorous measurements.

The results could be positive, as we have reason to hope, but also negative. We have still a lot of work to do, and we are making a lot of work.

He didn’t answer my question in much detail (as usual) but gives an indication that he is very happy with the partnership. He mentions this time that in addition to being involved in R&D and validation, they are also working on ‘industrialization’, which is a new emphasis.

Also, it’s interesting that Rossi says that they have ‘reason to hope’ that the results will be positive, while allowing, as usual, for a negative outcome. That’s a somewhat more hopeful tone than he has been expressing in recent posts — I wonder what it is that gives him that reason.

  • George N

    I may have missed it discussed on this site, but back in the fall the DoE issued RFPs worth a total of $10 million for cold fusion research. This is a huge deal — I wonder if it us because they don’t want to appear flat footed when a privately developed cold fusion product hits the market?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It seems that the funding was never there, but the agency made an embarrassing terminological mistake: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg89562.html . They are even further behind that anyone thought possible.

      • George N

        Wow, makes me think the DoE is playing word games in case a CF product does hit the market; but in reality they are appeasing the patho-skeptics by not actually investing in the original meaning of LENR

    • Warthog

      Nope. The “mention of cold fusion” was specifically said to be things like “muon catalyzed fusion”. LENR was specifically said not to be one of the funding options. George Miley asked the question as he was going to submit a proposal. The answer he got was “no”.

      • Sanjeev

        So are they trying to smear the meaning of cold fusion now ?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          The call text said “low energy nuclear reaction”, not “cold fusion”. Muon catalysis was indeed sometimes called “cold fusion”, but I have never heard anyone call it “low energy nuclear reaction”. LENR means LENR and it has no other meanings, that’s why the term was created I guess. I think they are just incredibly ignorant and incompetent and got caught. I can’t see how such terminological blunder could be intentional.

      • GreenWin

        The person who made the muon catalyzed fusion comment is NOT the Director of the ARPA-E program. He (don’t recall name) is a typical MIT hot fusion-type guy who does NOT make policy at DOE or ARPA-E.

  • George N

    I may have missed it discussed on this site, but back in the fall the DoE issued RFPs worth a total of $10 million for cold fusion research. This is a huge deal — I wonder if it us because they don’t want to appear flat footed when a privately developed cold fusion product hits the market?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It seems that the funding was never there, but the agency made an embarrassing terminological mistake: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg89562.html . They are even further behind that anyone thought possible.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Pekka…..thanks for the site, it is becoming hard to believe there is not deliberate program to delay/bury LENR.

        • George N

          I agree

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Do they want China to take the lead? They can’t collect a carbon tax if we don’t emit CO2.

        • Job001

          Consider it a “Den of thieves”.
          They don’t share what is stolen from taxpayers.
          No conspiracy required.

      • George N

        Wow, makes me think the DoE is playing word games in case a CF product does hit the market; but in reality they are appeasing the patho-skeptics by not actually investing in the original meaning of LENR

      • Frechette

        The money that the DOE supposedly set aside for CF is really for Muon-Catalysed fusion. Unfortunately Muon particles can only be created in a high energy accelerator so the process is not commercially viable for energy production at present.

    • Warthog

      Nope. The “mention of cold fusion” was specifically said to be things like “muon catalyzed fusion”. LENR was specifically said not to be one of the funding options. George Miley asked the question as he was going to submit a proposal. The answer he got was “no”.

      • Sanjeev

        So are they trying to smear the meaning of cold fusion now ?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          The call text said “low energy nuclear reaction”, not “cold fusion”. Muon catalysis was indeed sometimes called “cold fusion”, but I have never heard anyone call it “low energy nuclear reaction”. LENR means LENR and it has no other meanings, that’s why the term was created I guess. I think they are just incredibly ignorant and incompetent and got caught. I can’t see how such terminological blunder could be intentional.

      • GreenWin

        The person who made the muon catalyzed fusion comment is NOT the Director of the ARPA-E program. He (don’t recall name) is a typical MIT hot fusion-type guy who does NOT make policy at DOE or ARPA-E.

  • BroKeeper

    I’m sure he has a fly on the wall at the test site and has not yet heard of anything negative as the end approaches hope’s Spring.

  • Brokeeper

    I’m sure he has a fly on the wall at the test site and has not yet heard of anything negative as the end approaches hope’s Spring.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    I wonder how many vans are parked outside IH with laser listening devices. When he says results could be bad (“but also negative”) I got a shiver down my spine…. Say WHAT?

  • friendlyprogrammer

    I wonder how many vans are parked outside IH with laser listening devices. When he says results could be bad (“but also negative”) I got a shiver down my spine…. Say WHAT?

    • Roger Bird

      Bad might very well be, probably would be, something like they had control problems after 5.5 months of running time, or something like that. Remember, “bad” does not mean LENR+ is not real. To get to commercialization, the process has to be perfect. My furnace has been going strong for almost 14 years without any problem whatsoever. I talked to some dudes sitting around at the hydropower station in Manitou Springs, CO. They said that their turbines had been whirling around at 15 times per second for more than 100 years without any problems. (They didn’t say the word “whatsoever”.)

      • friendlyprogrammer

        I was convinced in 2011, but he could not make his reaction last longer than 18 hours back then and carefully hid that from everyone. I think Rossi is great, but I wonder how much we know about how viable the ecat really is by our perceived notions (AT PRESENT).

        I certainly know LENR is coming with or without Rossi, but he has been a shining star. It’s disconcerting to hear him speak of possible negative results so “earnestly”.

        • Iggy Dalrymple

          His “negative” disclaimer is just that, a cya disclaimer. He’s working with investment experts now and I think they’ve instructed him to do so.

          • Omega Z

            It’s likely IH wants the confirmation to come from a 3rd party, Thus Rossi is coerced to make this statement to appear unbiased or more professional.

            An Outside source of confirmation always carries more wait then if it comes from the center of development.

            However a working Product in the market Trumps all Opinions. 🙂

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Are we sure that he could not make it last longer than 18 hours at that time? It was Defkalion’s claim, but it could have been wrong, or it could have been that Rossi didn’t trust anyone else at that point and himself couldn’t stay awake for more than 18 hours. Rossi claimed that he had reactor running for 6 months at the time, and while there is no proof of it now, often his claims have turned out to be true. Not terribly important, but of some historical interest.

          • friendlyprogrammer

            Yes. Rossi admitted stability was an issue after he corrected the problem the following year. We also have the Defkalion account that they offered 15 million/partnership if it could run for 2 days. I also have followed from 2011, and I believe in the ecat. He admittedly had stability problems back then.

          • Allan Shura

            His shop was reportedly heated for about a year a while ago. Pity the shops who still have use
            the old expensive ways to heat their place when they could have bought an e-cat instead in
            the past 2 years.

      • Sanjeev

        Imho, the process/product need not be perfect to enable commercialization. My experience says something else. The product needs to be useful and must have a big potential, that’s all. It may look like a pile of dung and may explode frequently, and it will still be very successful. Its a big mistake to put a useful idea into closet locked forever only because its not perfect. There is no such thing as perfect.

        The early cars didn’t run well, were very dangerous. The early planes often dropped like dead birds from the sky. The primitive electronic devices and computers were unreliable and failed often. Even the modern rockets, spacecrafts and rovers still go boom or get lost in the infinity often. People still build them and use them.

        Once a product is in wide use (has a decent market), its weaknesses come out and people find cures for it. People copy each other and improvise it. Competition fuels its development even more and brings down the prices, making it even more widespread and the cycle repeats. Thus the product nears perfection. Its a virtuous circle.

        • Roger Bird

          “perfect would merely be a figure of speech. I defer to your discription of what is needed.

        • Allan Shura

          100 years after the early cars there are recalls.

      • Allan Shura

        The mechanical engineers have figured this out. The turbine manufacturer didn’t test for 100 years.
        Having been in power plants with large turbines they are maintained and or overhauled annually or
        semi annually or in the event of a problem.

  • PD

    The key to success is not ending up in the same mess as Fleischmann–Pons (almost 25 years ago). Peer review and validation are important for the credibility of cold fusion and LENR. A second failure on a global scale will surely kill this area of research for a very significant period of time.

    I think the timing of the E-Cat report is likely to be very close to the 25th anniversary of the press conference on 23rd March 1989 (Cold Fusion Press Conference at University of Utah).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      F&P’s work was peer reviewed and validated in 1989.

      • Brokeeper

        Alan, I beleive you, however I could not find any substantive claims it was validated in 1989. Steven B. Krivit’s 2012 article only claims “To this day, Fleischmann and Pons’ seminal paper has never been successfully refuted in the scientific literature”. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml
        Could you reference the validation to improve my understanding? Thanks.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Just off the top of my head, I think it was: Michael McKubre, John O’Mara Bockris, Tadahiko Mizuno, Edmund Storms, Melvin Miles, John Dash…..

          • Omega Z

            I Agree, It was peer reviewed and validated, but the High Priest refused to give recognition to it.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            The jealousy of the hot fusion clan was palpable. They played their pedigree cards and reflexively displayed their condescending smug twerp mannerisms.

          • Brokeeper

            Thanks Alan. This has enlightened me how much deeper these little gods has descended into the rabbit hole of illusions.

    • Sanjeev

      Its desirable to not to end up like F&P surely, but it was the so called peer review that made it end up like that.
      Pioneers have no peers by definition and so no review is possible without first growing to the level where he is.

      With rampant corruption in science, due to its mostly funded by people who’s only goal is profit at any cost, its very easy to “arrange” a peer review result that is negative. All sorts of reviews have been already done as far as ECat is concerned, with 3rd party tests, still there is no acceptance of it. This is enough to show how useless the peer review process is.

      Recent example is the lady in Japan who discovered that stem cells can be made from ordinary cells by simply placing them in an acidic medium. Her papers and discovery was promptly rejected by her peers, because it was impossible in their view. None of those peers actually tried that experiment.
      http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/29/make-stem-cells-major-discovery-acid-technique

      Other example is an article in NewScientist which shows that “studies” are regularly done to disprove harmful effects of sugar. These are obviously sponsored by food & drinks industry. As a result an average person in the US is being forced to consume 20 teaspoon full of sugar everyday. Be careful is you are in the US, where even science is buried under greed.
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129540.500-sugar-on-trial-what-you-really-need-to-know.html

      • Charles Hansen

        It was the lack of peer review that got them in the mess…. discussing the claims before review. It was then during the review that the data was ignored, due to the claims discussed before the review.

        • US_Citizen71

          Their experiment has since been replicated countless times so they did nothing wrong other than not seeking the permission from high priests of science to go public. Peer reviewers (mainly MIT) performed their replication attempts like drunken frat boys mixing a cocktail. The problem was not the experiment but the experimenter.

        • Alan DeAngelis
      • georgehants

        Sanjeev, so agree, and a thousand other examples of corruption etc. by science, could easily be added to yours.

        • Sanjeev

          My favorite is the one where someone generated fake papers with fake names (using software to generate them) and submitted to many journals. Hundreds of these journals accepted the paper.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F
          This is the living proof that the journals are nothing but a profitable business. We do not have the scientific journals of past, things have changed.

          • Kat Jones

            I think you missed the point Sanjeev. The fake papers were sent to journals that charge the authors to publish the papers instead of charging readers to read them. These journals have a financial incentive to publish everything submitted and frankly most of them could care less whether the article is any good. One name for these journals is “Vanity Presses” because they rely on people who are willing to pay to see their work published even if it is not fit to publish.
            This is in contrast to true academic journals that rely on their reputation to stay in business.

            I am currently on the editorial board of two journals and have reviewed many articles for at least a dozen different journals over the last twenty years. I have never once been involved in any “conspiracy” to bury some result. I have never once been pressured by anyone to support or deny a publication.

            Peer review is not perfect, but it better than letting internet trolls and corporate lobbyists make the decisions.

          • georgehants

            Kat Jones, how many papers have you published on Cold Fusion, the Placebo Effect, Telepathy etc. etc. all proven subjects?
            What do you think of the “journals” that will not print on these subjects and reject them out of hand?
            What do you think of how science has handled Cold Fusion for the last 24 years?
            How do you as an editor and the so called peers possibly determine the accuracy of a paper, when only the people involved in the Research and verification have any clue about the subject being reviewed and everybody else is going by “expert” bloody “opinion”?

          • NT

            Good challenge and questions George. I hope Kat Jones will/can come up with some answers soon?

          • Kat Jones

            Georgehants,

            I have published zero papers on Cold Fusion, the Placebo Effect, and Telepathy. I am not an expert in these fields. I was responding to Sanjeev’s comment about journals publishing crap papers and the general meme on this site that journals conspire somehow to suppress papers on topics that have been deemed unacceptable by some murky clan of puppet masters that rule all of science.

            But since you asked, most journals have a clear mission statement that guides the editors and the reviewers as to what types of papers the journal wishes to publish. This is because they wish to become THE journal in a particular topic and hence have a good reputation and a long subscriber list. One of the journals I edit for now had previously rejected two of my submitted articles. Whoever the reviewers were at that time decided my submissions were not appropriate for that journal, and I think they were right. I ended up publishing them somewhere else eventually because it was not the quality of the papers that were objectionable, but the topic.

            So Georgehants, I urge you to start your own journal (you seem to have a lot of time on your hands). I think the “International Journal on Validations of Telepathy” would serve to fill a void that currently exists in academic journals. As chief editor, you will begin to receive far more paper submissions than you want to publish and will have to make some difficult choices to insure only the best work appears in your journal. You will also get articles submitted that are not on Telepathy, but instead reincarnation, quantum chemistry, mating habits of the shrew, and whether Bigfoot is racist. You will obviously reject these submissions because your journal is about Telepathy and not Bigfoot or quantum chemistry. At that point we can all accuse you of reckless and arrogant dismissal of topics you know nothing about.

            Back to seriousness. There are two main reasons why articles get rejected by journals: topic and quality. It is important to understand the difference.

            Another thing to remember is that science journals at their core are about explaining things, not about building things or preserving observations for posterity. If anybody ever writes a convincing article explaining why F & P’s original experiment had excess energy but is so enormously difficult to replicate, then it would surely be published in top journals. On the other hand, if I light up Times Square for a week using a secret black box that nobody can inspect, it isn’t going to get me published in the Journal of Computational Chemistry. I would have to settle for E-Cat World.
            But that is still something!

          • georgehants

            Kat Jones, thank you for your reply that completely confirms our position.
            You are saying that specialised journals, simply dealing with basic nuts and bolts and steam engines, are very good as long as nobody gives Evidence of a new bolt that does not conform to Dogma and is not easily reproduced.
            Fine I can agree with that.
            You then spend pages of hand waving attempting to justify that clearly ridiculous position in a profession such as science, that is supposed to be concerned with investigating the new and unknown, where new knowledge must be released, without censorship from the closed-minded, unqualified (If the paper is on new science then everybody is unqualified to judge) “opinion” experts, so that attempts can be made to reproduce the claimed effect.
            How do other scientists get to know of these claims if they are not published?
            You are apparently saying that journals are only for “applied” science and incapable of handling real investigative science.
            I take it therefore that you are the first to campaign for open-access publication of all scientific papers on subjects beyond the most mundane, basic and uncontroversial topics.

          • Sanjeev

            Your statement that those journals charge authors to publish papers only supports my point, which is these journals are nothing but a money making scheme. The publishers and editors are nothing but businessmen, having no relation to science.
            So what about those who do not charge? They simply have a different business model.
            How and why the spread of scientific knowledge got linked to financial benefits? How come a handful of people got power to decide what is truth and what is not by simply controlling what gets published in their so called prestigious journals? Isn’t it a total failure of science?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah Sanjeev, Rossi went to the school of hard knocks (remember the way they screwed him when he was young man). He also had the benefit of seeing the vicious attacks upon F&P (Yes there really are such things as conspiracies. THAT’S WHY THE WORD IS IN THE DICTIONARY). This prepared him well for what he faces now. As I’ve mentioned before, http://coldfusionnow.org/science-journal-rejections-suppress-clean-energy-research/ his idea of just making the E-Cat and bypassing the patent gauntlet reminded me of Alexander the Great cutting the Gordian Knot and The Battle of Gaugamela. Have we taken of the role of Rossi’s peltasts?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUu2rz8WhZg

        • Sanjeev

          Earlier I did not understand the benefits of Rossi keeping the secret and not allowing anyone near his Ecats, but now I also think that it was a smart move. It kept people from stealing his tech and it prevented the staged failed replications by anyone who wanted to bury it.
          From the start, he insisted that only a product will prove his claims.

          About conspiracy, I still think its only human nature and not an intentionally planned activity by some masterminds. Its just that people of similar nature tend to come together and do similar things, so the greedy or power hungry or simply fearful and stupid among us came together and discredited cold fusion. Such people do love the positions of authority and so we see it being buried for last 25 years successfully.

          Some people are still doing it, you can see them in lamestream media. I especially noted the two jokers who did some kind of COMSOL simulation on their PC to “conclusively prove” for once and for all that the Ecat does not work. Some reporters picked it up, as if desperately needing such a refutation and published it.

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev

        Most are aware enough to question Corporate Research.
        What is really sad is we have to question Government sponsored research as they too promote Biased Science to advance their own agenda’s.

        In Fact, Government may be worse then Business.
        Note that many Mainstream sites & Entities such as Pop-Si have eliminated the comments section.
        Because:
        Government Science has determined that Public Dissent is BAD..

        People should not be allowed to have their own opinions.

        • Obvious

          We are the government. Only when we forget that does the institution of government have sway over us, instead of the other way around.

          • Omega Z

            I agree
            Now we just need to convince our Elitist Government of that fact.
            But, By controlling or silencing the Public dissent it’s an up hill battle.

            Blog sites & Forums help, but the lack of access to mainstream sites has a major advantage of silencing those who disagree with them. It gives the appearance of everyone being in lockstep.

            It’s not all that hard to block certain individuals who get mean & nasty & name calling while still allowing legitimate dissent. So one has to believe the reason for blocking everyone is to silence any & all dissent from that don’t fit their dogma.

            Free thinkers aren’t allowed to have opinions & are considered enemies of the State..

    • Ophelia Rump

      Rossi is not an academic. Academics cannot shut him down.
      And Rossi is not the only player in the game.
      By playing the game of the academics, one gives those bought and sold academics a hammer with which to beat one to death unjustly.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    F&P’s work was peer reviewed and validated in 1989.

    • BroKeeper

      Alan, I beleive you, however I could not find any substantive claims it was validated in 1989. Steven B. Krivit’s 2012 article only claims “To this day, Fleischmann and Pons’ seminal paper has never been successfully refuted in the scientific literature”. http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/TheSeminalPapers.shtml
      Could you reference the validation to improve my understanding? Thanks.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Just off the top of my head, I think it was: Michael McKubre, John O’Mara Bockris, Tadahiko Mizuno, Edmund Storms, Melvin Miles, John Dash…..

        • Omega Z

          I Agree, It was peer reviewed and validated, but the High Priest refused to give recognition to it.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            The jealousy of the hot fusion clan was palpable. They played their pedigree cards and reflexively displayed their condescending smug twerp mannerisms.

          • BroKeeper

            Thanks Alan. This has enlightened me how much deeper these little gods has descended into the rabbit hole of illusions.

  • George N

    I agree

  • Daniel Maris

    I don’t agree. The primary aim has to be to get a working product to market. The skeps won’t accept a peer reviewed journal article as proof.

    Only hundreds of stasified customers will settle this.

  • Daniel Maris

    Encouraging…especially since we know that the IH senior management will also be aware of these comments now, so Rossi’s claims have added credibility.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Do they want China to take the lead? They can’t collect a carbon tax if we don’t emit CO2.

    • bitplayer

      And China would collect a large portion of carbon offset credits, as they reduce CO2 emissions.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I can’t believe that those charming people we see on TV would intentionally be doing this to us. That would be impossible because they love us so much.

  • friendlyprogrammer

    I was convinced in 2011, but he could not make his reaction last longer than 18 hours back then and carefully hid that from everyone. I think Rossi is great, but I wonder how much we know about how viable the ecat really is by our perceived notions (AT PRESENT).

    I certainly know LENR is coming with or without Rossi, but he has been a shining star. It’s disconcerting to hear him speak of possible negative results so “earnestly”.

    • Iggy Dalrymple

      His “negative” disclaimer is just that, a cya disclaimer. He’s working with investment experts now and I think they’ve instructed him to do so.

      • Omega Z

        It’s likely IH wants the confirmation to come from a 3rd party, Thus Rossi is coerced to make this statement to appear unbiased or more professional.

        An Outside source of confirmation always carries more wait then if it comes from the center of development.

        However a working Product in the market Trumps all Opinions. 🙂

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Are we sure that he could not make it last longer than 18 hours at that time? It was Defkalion’s claim, but it could have been wrong, or it could have been that Rossi didn’t trust anyone else at that point and himself couldn’t stay awake for more than 18 hours. Rossi claimed that he had reactor running for 6 months at the time, and while there is no proof of it now, often his claims have turned out to be true. Not terribly important, but of some historical interest.

      • friendlyprogrammer

        Yes. Rossi admitted stability was an issue after he corrected the problem the following year. We also have the Defkalion account that they offered 15 million/partnership if it could run for 2 days. I also have followed from 2011, and I believe in the ecat. He admittedly had stability problems back then.

      • Allan Shura

        His shop was reportedly heated for about a year a while ago. Pity the shops who still have use
        the old expensive ways to heat their place when they could have bought an e-cat instead in
        the past 2 years.

  • Sanjeev

    Its desirable to not to end up like F&P surely, but it was the so called peer review that made it end up like that.
    Pioneers have no peers by definition and so no review is possible without first growing to the level where he is.

    With rampant corruption in science, due to its mostly funded by people who’s only goal is profit at any cost, its very easy to “arrange” a peer review result that is negative. All sorts of reviews have been already done as far as ECat is concerned, with 3rd party tests, still there is no acceptance of it. This is enough to show how useless the peer review process is.

    Recent example is the lady in Japan who discovered that stem cells can be made from ordinary cells by simply placing them in an acidic medium. Her papers and discovery was promptly rejected by her peers, because it was impossible in their view. None of those peers actually tried that experiment.
    http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/29/make-stem-cells-major-discovery-acid-technique

    Other example is an article in NewScientist which shows that “studies” are regularly done to disprove harmful effects of sugar. These are obviously sponsored by food & drinks industry. As a result an average person in the US is being forced to consume 20 teaspoon full of sugar everyday. Be careful is you are in the US, where even science is buried under greed.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129540.500-sugar-on-trial-what-you-really-need-to-know.html

    • catbauer24

      It was the lack of peer review that got them in the mess…. discussing the claims before review. It was then during the review that the data was ignored, due to the claims discussed before the review.

      • US_Citizen71

        Their experiment has since been replicated countless times so they did nothing wrong other than not seeking the permission from high priests of science to go public. Peer reviewers (mainly MIT) performed their replication attempts like drunken frat boys mixing a cocktail. The problem was not the experiment but the experimenter.

      • Alan DeAngelis
    • georgehants

      Sanjeev, so agree, and a thousand other examples of corruption etc. by science, could easily be added to yours.

      • Sanjeev

        My favorite is the one where someone generated fake papers with fake names (using software to generate them) and submitted to many journals. Hundreds of these journals accepted the paper.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who%27s_Afraid_of_Peer_Review%3F
        This is the living proof that the journals are nothing but a profitable business. We do not have the scientific journals of past, things have changed.

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Yeah Sanjeev, Rossi went to the school of hard knocks (remember the way they screwed him when he was young man). He also had the benefit of seeing the vicious attacks upon F&P (Yes there really are such things as conspiracies. THAT’S WHY THE WORD IS IN THE DICTIONARY). This prepared him well for what he faces now. As I’ve mentioned before, http://coldfusionnow.org/science-journal-rejections-suppress-clean-energy-research/ his idea of just making the E-Cat and bypassing the patent gauntlet reminded me of Alexander the Great cutting the Gordian Knot and The Battle of Gaugamela. Have we taken of the role of Rossi’s peltasts?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUu2rz8WhZg

      • Sanjeev

        Earlier I did not understand the benefits of Rossi keeping the secret and not allowing anyone near his Ecats, but now I also think that it was a smart move. It kept people from stealing his tech and it prevented the staged failed replications by anyone who wanted to bury it.
        From the start, he insisted that only a product will prove his claims.

        About conspiracy, I still think its only human nature and not an intentionally planned activity by some masterminds. Its just that people of similar nature tend to come together and do similar things, so the greedy or power hungry or simply fearful and stupid among us came together and discredited cold fusion. Such people do love the positions of authority and so we see it being buried for last 25 years successfully.

        Some people are still doing it, you can see them in lamestream media. I especially noted the two jokers who did some kind of COMSOL simulation on their PC to “conclusively prove” for once and for all that the Ecat does not work. Some reporters picked it up, as if desperately needing such a refutation and published it.

    • Omega Z

      Sanjeev

      Most are aware enough to question Corporate Research.
      What is really sad is we have to question Government sponsored research as they too promote Biased Science to advance their own agenda’s.

      In Fact, Government may be worse then Business.
      Note that many Mainstream sites & Entities such as Pop-Si have eliminated the comments section.
      Because:
      Government Science has determined that Public Dissent is BAD..

      People should not be allowed to have their own opinions.

      • Obvious

        We are the government. Only when we forget that does the institution of government have sway over us, instead of the other way around.

        • Omega Z

          I agree
          Now we just need to convince our Elitist Government of that fact.
          But, By controlling or silencing the Public dissent it’s an up hill battle.

          Blog sites & Forums help, but the lack of access to mainstream sites has a major advantage of silencing those who disagree with them. It gives the appearance of everyone being in lockstep.

          It’s not all that hard to block certain individuals who get mean & nasty & name calling while still allowing legitimate dissent. So one has to believe the reason for blocking everyone is to silence any & all dissent from that don’t fit their dogma.

          Free thinkers aren’t allowed to have opinions & are considered enemies of the State..

  • Job001

    Consider it a “Den of thieves”.
    They don’t share what is stolen from taxpayers.
    No conspiracy required.

  • Sanjeev

    Imho, the process/product need not be perfect to enable commercialization. My experience says something else. The product needs to be useful and must have a big potential, that’s all. It may look like a pile of dung and may explode frequently, and it will still be very successful. Its a big mistake to put a useful idea into closet locked forever only because its not perfect. There is no such thing as perfect.

    The early cars didn’t run well, were very dangerous. The early planes often dropped like dead birds from the sky. The primitive electronic devices and computers were unreliable and failed often. Even the modern rockets, spacecrafts and rovers still go boom or get lost in the infinity often. People still build them and use them.

    Once a product is in wide use (has a decent market), its weaknesses come out and people find cures for it. People copy each other and improvise it. Competition fuels its development even more and brings down the prices, making it even more widespread and the cycle repeats. Thus the product nears perfection. Its a virtuous circle.

    • Roger Bird

      “perfect would merely be a figure of speech. I defer to your discription of what is needed.

    • Allan Shura

      100 years after the early cars there are recalls.

  • Allan Shura

    The mechanical engineers have figured this out. The turbine manufacturer didn’t test for 100 years.
    Having been in power plants with large turbines they are maintained and or overhauled annually or
    semi annually or in the event of a problem.

  • Ophelia Rump

    People should really stop hanging on his “the outcome could be positive or negative” statements. He is really just saying that he can’t make premature announcements. Industrial Heat has a marketable technology in the opinion of 20 million dollar investors. Now they need to use that money to make it into marketable products. These simple facts are not going to evaporate, they are only going to become more realized and actualized.

  • Ophelia Rump

    People should really stop hanging on his “the outcome could be positive or negative” statements. He is really just saying that he can’t make premature announcements. Industrial Heat has a marketable technology in the opinion of 20 million dollar investors. Now they need to use that money to make it into marketable products. These simple facts are not going to evaporate, they are only going to become more realized and actualized.

    • mcloki

      Its the same as mutual fund companies disclaiming. Future returns cannot be implied form past results. It’s ass covering. I don’t doubt Rossi, but there’s always legal bullshit.

      • Ophelia Rump

        I call BS on that. mcloki. It is not a disclaimer on the existence of LENR and you very well know that.

        It is the not making of premature declarations of whatever incremental developments are ongoing toward marketing a product.

        Rossi has stated quite clearly and emphatically the state of his technology several times in the past.

        If a hypothetical test to squeeze the Hot Cat into an AA battery casing fails, that does not doom the technology, as much as you would like any statement of failure to be the Rossi’s final words.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Rossi is not an academic. Academics cannot shut him down.
    And Rossi is not the only player in the game.
    By playing the game of the academics, one gives those bought and sold academics a hammer with which to beat one to death unjustly.

    • georgehants

      Kat Jones, how many papers have you published on Cold Fusion, the Placebo Effect, Telepathy etc. etc. all proven subjects?
      What do you think of the “journals” that will not print on these subjects and reject them out of hand?
      Whet do you think of how science has handled Cold Fusion for the last 14 years?

      • NT

        Good challenge and questions George. I hope Kat Jones will/can come up with some answers soon?

    • Sanjeev

      Your statement that those journals charge authors to publish papers only supports my point, which is these journals are nothing but a money making scheme. The publishers and editors are nothing but businessmen, having no relation to science.
      So what about those who do not charge? They simply have a different business model.
      How and why the spread of scientific knowledge got linked to financial benefits? How come a handful of people got power to decide what is truth and what is not by simply controlling what gets published in their so called prestigious journals? Isn’t it a total failure of science?

  • georgehants

    Kat Jones, thank you for your reply that completely confirms our position.
    You are saying that specialised journals, simply dealing with basic nuts and bolts and steam engines, are very good as long as nobody gives Evidence of a new bolt that does not conform to Dogma and is not easily reproduced.
    Fine I can agree with that.
    You then spend pages of hand waving attempting to justify that clearly ridiculous position in a profession such as science, that is supposed to be concerned with investigating the new and unknown, where new knowledge must be released, without censorship from the closed-minded, unqualified (If the paper is on new science then everybody is unqualified to judge) “opinion” experts, so that attempts can be made to reproduce the claimed effect.
    How do other scientists get to know of these claims if they are not published?
    You are apparently saying that journals are only for “applied” science and incapable of handling real investigative science.
    I take it therefore that you are the first to campaign for open-access publication of all scientific papers on subjects beyond the most mundane, basic and uncontroversial topics.

  • Charles Hansen

    @danielmaris:disqusYes, hundreds of satisfied customers purchasing NANORs for study will settle acceptance. No type of nuclear reaction should be deemed legal for corporations and industries to secretly sell and use, or for profitable sale for domestic use, before such an open public study of the particular reaction in question. Anecdotal evidence from a corporation about safety of a nuclear reaction is woefully inadequate for such sales to take place.